1AC
Don't read the Kagan card. It's all about why forward deployment is good
Terrorism is generally a bad impact
1NC
I hate ASPEC
Do stamina drills. You start to blend tags and cards together in the latter half of your speech
You have time left. Read more terrorism impact defense. Or terror good. Terrorism is a shitty shitty impact.
Also, why read XO when there's so much sweet specific literature against the case.
If you're going to read XO, you should know that the president doesn't need Congressional approval to pull the troops out of Afghanistan. The only thing the president needs from Congress in terms of military strategy is funding for troops, something that pulling out doesn't require. This actually makes the CP kind of dumb now that I think about it, because the CP sends pretty much the same signal as the plan, means ptx isn't a n/b.
2AC
Framework. Ew.
You have Fitzsimmons tagged wrong. The way you've tagged it makes it sound like a predictions bad card, when in reality it's a predictions good card. Just say "don't reject our predictions outright, just analyze them based on probability." The problem is the tension this creates with your "magnitude o/w probability" argument on the terrorism flow. Yet another reason why terrorism is a shitty impact.
I liked your politics 2AC. Except the intrinsicness argument. Intrinsicness is totalitarian.
I also thought the Perm-PIC nearly all trick on the non-XO CP was good too.
2NC
The heg flow was sick. The CP seems kind of weak.
You conceded their (crappy) answer to your impact defense. While the Milholin card is good, the arguments you extend are about building the bomb. Their scenario is that terrorists will steal nuclear weapons and use them. This is equally dumb, but isn't in the speech.
1NR
Yay! The first turns case analysis I have heard all camp.
OMG you have a minute left. READ MORE CARDS.
1AR
I hate the terrorism advantage.
On politics you should reference the cites of your evidence on the link turn debate or I don't know which argument to flow it against especially when the 2AC tags are just like "the plan is popular"
Good time allocation; I thought your coverage of the heg flow was really good.
2NR
Should've gone for politics
I feel like a good 2AR could just smash the d/a pretty decisively. Their argument is that if we don't withdraw from Afghanistan now we'll withdraw from everywhere else later because the public will backlash against a forward deployment strategy. They don't need the uniqueness debate. I think you're in a tough spot, honestly, because you don't have any defense on their specific internal link going into the 2NR. This is why I think you should've gone for politics because you have a more general turns case argument along with a big external impact as opposed to the heg d/a where you can easily lose the substance of this debate on try or die.
2AR
You need to open very loudly and very decisively with an impact framing argument. Their argument is that forward deployed troops are good in the abstract. Their evidence isn't specific to Afghanistan. The plan means we have net more forward deployed troops because it prevents a public backlash against other troops commitments. While you make this argument in the speech, you need to lead with it to frame the debate for the judge and make it clear that is what this debate revolves around. Your 2AR should write the judge's ballot - start with the things that matter most in the debate.
I don't understand why you spend so much time on the CP in the 2AR when you not only do not impact the terrorism advantage against the possibility of their heg d/a but also conceded the impact defense against terror.
Don't read the Kagan card. It's all about why forward deployment is good
Terrorism is generally a bad impact
1NC
I hate ASPEC
Do stamina drills. You start to blend tags and cards together in the latter half of your speech
You have time left. Read more terrorism impact defense. Or terror good. Terrorism is a shitty shitty impact.
Also, why read XO when there's so much sweet specific literature against the case.
If you're going to read XO, you should know that the president doesn't need Congressional approval to pull the troops out of Afghanistan. The only thing the president needs from Congress in terms of military strategy is funding for troops, something that pulling out doesn't require. This actually makes the CP kind of dumb now that I think about it, because the CP sends pretty much the same signal as the plan, means ptx isn't a n/b.
2AC
Framework. Ew.
You have Fitzsimmons tagged wrong. The way you've tagged it makes it sound like a predictions bad card, when in reality it's a predictions good card. Just say "don't reject our predictions outright, just analyze them based on probability." The problem is the tension this creates with your "magnitude o/w probability" argument on the terrorism flow. Yet another reason why terrorism is a shitty impact.
I liked your politics 2AC. Except the intrinsicness argument. Intrinsicness is totalitarian.
I also thought the Perm-PIC nearly all trick on the non-XO CP was good too.
2NC
The heg flow was sick. The CP seems kind of weak.
You conceded their (crappy) answer to your impact defense. While the Milholin card is good, the arguments you extend are about building the bomb. Their scenario is that terrorists will steal nuclear weapons and use them. This is equally dumb, but isn't in the speech.
1NR
Yay! The first turns case analysis I have heard all camp.
OMG you have a minute left. READ MORE CARDS.
1AR
I hate the terrorism advantage.
On politics you should reference the cites of your evidence on the link turn debate or I don't know which argument to flow it against especially when the 2AC tags are just like "the plan is popular"
Good time allocation; I thought your coverage of the heg flow was really good.
2NR
Should've gone for politics
I feel like a good 2AR could just smash the d/a pretty decisively. Their argument is that if we don't withdraw from Afghanistan now we'll withdraw from everywhere else later because the public will backlash against a forward deployment strategy. They don't need the uniqueness debate. I think you're in a tough spot, honestly, because you don't have any defense on their specific internal link going into the 2NR. This is why I think you should've gone for politics because you have a more general turns case argument along with a big external impact as opposed to the heg d/a where you can easily lose the substance of this debate on try or die.
2AR
You need to open very loudly and very decisively with an impact framing argument. Their argument is that forward deployed troops are good in the abstract. Their evidence isn't specific to Afghanistan. The plan means we have net more forward deployed troops because it prevents a public backlash against other troops commitments. While you make this argument in the speech, you need to lead with it to frame the debate for the judge and make it clear that is what this debate revolves around. Your 2AR should write the judge's ballot - start with the things that matter most in the debate.
I don't understand why you spend so much time on the CP in the 2AR when you not only do not impact the terrorism advantage against the possibility of their heg d/a but also conceded the impact defense against terror.